Comments

“I’ve already proved you to be an embellishing egotistical liar for the cause”

In your dreams, bush pruner, in your dreams. I’d like to add that I think it us both ironic and sad that people with clearly mediocre educations and occupations – by that I mean you, Betula, as well as Karen, Mack, and Olaus – like to bat on the side of those wishing to seriously damage out planet’s ecosystems for the benefits of short-term profits. Now, I can understand it if you clowns had tons of cash stored away or worked as CEOs for some huge transnational corporation (and even then, only because of short-term greed), but when a bunch of second-rate illiterates sides with those intent on driving our planet’s ecosystems to hell in a hand-basket? Now that requires total stupidity. And you bunch have it in spades.

As for Olaus, note how he uses the Serengeti strategy I described earlier in this thread. Ignore countless studies in the peer-reviewed literature showing the deleterious effects of recent warming on species in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems – including zooplankton, a number of vertebrates and insect groups – and concentrate on Emperor Penguins. Note that the status of this species has also been upgraded from least concern to threatened, but Olaus will claim that this is a communist/UN plot to take away our freedoms or some such nonsense. And, like the bush pruner, ensure that the discussion (1) ignores scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals (another commie plot?) and (2) political agendas (outlined quite well in books like Michael Klare’s latest tome).

The most hilarious thing is that not a single one of this bunch of denier losers has any relevant expertise in any scientific field (well, that is except bush and tree pruning). They downplay the empirical evidence and the views of the vast majority of the scientific community, and then act as if they hold the intellectual high ground. Watch their poisonous reaction to this post – it will be greeted with hoots of derision but no substance. Par for the course.

Zoot, (and Karen),
There was hardly any effect with this ETS here , a 10c/litre petrol rise and the price of electricity escalated a bit more. But over in Aus it will “lock et in Eddie” for you guys . We literally do not use coal for electricity here but Juliar has got that solid black gold at 23 dollars / tonne to get her little taxing hands on. Don’t kid yourself that big ears will repeal this or even be able to. He said he’s a believer remember and knows that the great brainwashed is too big.

Karen, Mack and Betula use nothing but sites from deniers/think tanks to promote their nonsense. I have yet to see any actual published, peer-reviewed science represented here by these neophytes. Note Karen’s latest clips: one showing a train clearing snow in NZ, the other from right wing blogger Joanne Nova that are NOT in any way based on science. The first has nothing to do with science anyway; the second is by a well known libertarian denier. Where are the publications?

I would like to ask the deniers on Deltoid this: why don’t you all sod off and pollute one of your own myopic right wing blogs? You aren’t winning hearts and minds here. Why persist? What’s clear is that, since your arguments are intellectually bankrupt, your only recourse is to insult and smear others on this site. If you want to discuss the peer-reviewed literature by all means try. The problem is that its clear that none of you read the primary literature, just the corporate media or think tank related guff.

Like this for example: (or is it too complicated for you dedniers to comprehend)

Populations of migratory bird species that did not show a phenological response to climate change are declining

Anders Pape Møller*,†,
Diego Rubolini‡,†, and
Esa Lehikoinen§

Abstract

Recent rapid climatic changes are associated with dramatic changes in phenology of plants and animals, with optimal timing of reproduction advancing considerably in the northern hemisphere. However, some species may not have advanced their timing of breeding sufficiently to continue reproducing optimally relative to the occurrence of peak food availability, thus becoming mismatched compared with their food sources. The degree of mismatch may differ among species, and species with greater mismatch may be characterized by declining populations. Here we relate changes in spring migration timing by 100 European bird species since 1960, considered as an index of the phenological response of bird species to recent climate change, to their population trends. Species that declined in the period 1990–2000 did not advance their spring migration, whereas those with stable or increasing populations advanced their migration considerably. On the other hand, population trends during 1970–1990 were predicted by breeding habitat type, northernmost breeding latitude, and winter range (with species of agricultural habitat, breeding at northern latitudes, and wintering in Africa showing an unfavorable conservation status), but not by change in migration timing. The association between population trend in 1990–2000 and change in migration phenology was not confounded by any of the previously identified predictors of population trends in birds, or by similarity in phenotype among taxa due to common descent. Our findings imply that ecological factors affecting population trends can change over time and suggest that ongoing climatic changes will increasingly threaten vulnerable migratory bird species, augmenting their extinction risk.

There’s a lot more from where this comes from. I wait with baitged breath to see the deniers here struggle with their kindergarten-level understanding of ecology to fathom the signifiance of these studies….

No-one says “I’m from NZ” if that’s where they’re currently living. They’d say “I live in New Zealand” or “I’m in New Zealand”.

As one who has moved both nationally and internationally I’ve frequently noticed the difference in the various usages – even with my old kiwi flatmate. Almost universally “from” is used in the past tense… or, in this case, by someone who’s trying to project oceans and continents between his sockpuppets, and vainly hope that no-one realises that he’s full of it.

KarenMackSunspot, give it up. Your penchant for particular purient forms of vocabulary and your peculiar inability with sentence structure gives you away. It gave you away long ago. Even if you migrate to sockpuppets new, we’ll still pick you – you’re too stupid to be able to hide for long.

Yes thanks Karen.
@ Jeff Harvey , June 24th 10.05 am.
” As for Mack, you must be proud swallowing the volumes of corporate mainstream media propaganda you’ve been fed in dollops over the years”
WTF are you talking about.,matey Outside of your country there is no such thing as a “corporate mainstream media” But that’s par for the course for you myopic,closed-minded “intellectuals” you don’t think past your nose or outside your country. Like there is a thing out there and it’s called the world and it has a climate dumpkoff.
More seriously you are terrified of reading Nasif Nahle because a cold hand runs over your heart realising that your entire lifes work is invalid,and all your scientific papers..well bin them ..because somebody else will. As a scientist (as one comment said) you are making a fool of youself. You attempt to make us envious of your lavish conference life but you only comfort and kid yourself.

New paper shows Arctic temps have been much warmer than the present during 8 periods over the past 2.8 million years
A new paper published in Science examined sediment records from the Russian Arctic and finds at least 8 “super interglacials” [each lasting several thousand years] with “extreme warm conditions” up to 5C warmer than the present occurred over the past 2.8 million years. Furthermore, the paper states, “Climate [model] simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas [CO2] and astronomical forcing [solar insolation] alone.” The paper also finds the Arctic warming occurred simultaneously with Antarctic warming, indicating an interconnected, global phenomenon. Implications of the paper include: 1) The globe has been much warmer without human influence during multiple periods over the past 2.8 million years, 2) IPCC climate models are incapable of reproducing past temps and therefore unable to project future temps, and 3) global warming far exceeding alarmist IPCC projections has occurred several times in the past without triggering any “tipping points.”

The reliability of Arctic climate predictions is currently hampered by insufficient knowledge of natural climate variability in the past. A sediment core from Lake El’gygytgyn (NE Russia) provides a continuous high-resolution record from the Arctic spanning the past 2.8 Ma. The core reveals numerous “super interglacials” during the Quaternary, with maximum summer temperatures and annual precipitation during marine benthic isotope stages (MIS) 11c and 31 ~4-5°C and ~300 mm higher than those of MIS 1 and 5e. Climate simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences. The timing of Arctic warming relative to West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreats implies strong interhemispheric climate connectivity.http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/06/20/science.1222135

The more serious bit…… ditto for you Bernerd. The only reason I’ve a little more of a respect for you is because if you live the way you say you do. as a greenie at least you talk the talk and walk the walk.

“Although past studies have explored these responses during portions of the Cenozoic era (the most recent 65.5 million years (Myr) of Earth history), comparatively little is known about the climate of the late Miocene (~12–5 Myr ago), an interval with pco2 values of only 200–350 parts per million by volume but nearly ice-free conditions in the Northern Hemisphere2, 3 and warmer-than-modern temperatures on the continents4.”

Oh dear Jeffie. When will you stop projecting your doings onto others. You are the one constantly mouthing off about right wing multi-billion illuminati obstructing climate science without, nota bene, a shred of evidence to back your silly claims up. You are thriving on conspiracy theories Jeffie, where you can make yourself a knight in shining armor fighting down evil. Pathetic.

That said I have never claimed that CAGW is a commie or UN conspiracy. On the contrary it is very dynamic and very easy to explain with tools gathered from the sociology of religions.

Don’t you ever get tired of being lied to by the likes of hockeyschtick? Did you miss this from the abstract:

“implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences”

Amplifying feedbacks – ones that aren’t fully understood, ones that imply we might be in even deeper shit than previously believed:

“The scientists suspect the trigger for intense interglacials might lie in Antarctica…. The results are of global significance, they believe, demonstrating strong indications of an ongoing collapse of ice shelves around the Antarctic Peninsula and at the margins of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet–and a potential acceleration in the near future.”

Your saying that the ice shelves are going to capitalistically melt and the sea ice won’t, don’t you think that the sea ice might melt first ? There is no evidence of this at this time, actualy it is in the positive territory.

Olaus, you ahve not provided a single scientific paper to back up your so-called arguments. I linked one – I can link a lot of others if you like.OI know you haven’t got the foggiest clue about systems and population ecology, but do give it a whirl, instead of obfuscating Your sole replies have to resort to the sand bix every time. I have also suggested reading material for you to learn about the mega-funded anti-environmental lobbies out there and all you can do is reply with ‘it ain’t so Jeffie ‘type remarks. Read, man! Read! Take your head out of your butt!!!!!

I would just lurrvvee to debate you clowns in front of an audience. Lomborg was easy – he won”t debate me any more since I skewered him here 10 years ago. And by comparison, Ollie, you’d be a cupcake. No science, just silly retorts.

Karen: What has a study about ice conditions in the Miocene got to do with anthropogenic climate change? Zilch. The changes that occurred earlier probably took thousands of years to manifest themselves, not the space of half a century. This is the crux of the matter. We are talking about scale. Get that through your simple skull, will you? There have been 5 grerat extinction events preceding the current one in the planet’s history. Does that mean that the latest one – the result of human actions across the biosphere – is nothing to worry about? Or that humans cannot be responsible for the extinctions in the first place because the previous ones were primarily based on geological/astronomical phenomena? And again the scales we are talking about pale in comparison with past ones. The extinction of dinosaurs at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary was relatively rapid – it took about 15,000-20,000 years to be played out. The current extinction event is occurring in about 1-5% of that time. Again, we must think of temporal scales. Past climate events do not in any way weaken the huige and still growing evidence that humans are forcing changes in a largely deterministic climate system at scales way beyond the norm.

Mack: you are evn more stupid than Karen, if that is indeed possible. You write, Outside of your country there is no such thing as a “corporate mainstream media”. Good grief man, who owns most of the media? In the US NBC is owned by General Electric, Fox by Rupert Murdoch, ABC by Time-Warner et al. Most of the major newspapers in the world are part of publishing empires, or depend on corporate advertising for their survival. The advertisers are not going to take kindly to articles that threaten the status quo and profit margins. But I won’t waste my breath on your brand of ignorance,k as I might as well be discussing this with one of the Brassicaceous plants I use in my research. Its clear that you aren’t out of the crib in your knowledge of the MSM and parent/ownership agendas.

Essentially, this site is littered with Dunning-Kruger acolytes who think they know a lot about areas in whichthey have no basic understanding at all. No wonder my colleagues say that I am wasting my breath with you lot of idiots. The playing field not only isn’t level, its a chasm. Thanks heaven thatmost of the Contributors – Bernard, Bill, Wow, Chek, Ianam, John, Lotharsson, Marco et al. are intelligent people. Karen, Mack, Betual, Duff, Olaus – what a lot of detritus you all are.

Has it occurred to you that some of that increasing ‘sea’ ice is partly extra land ice that’s broken off the receding ends of faster moving glaciers? It’s (partly) a sign of ice lost from elsewhere in the system. Much like the currently increasing sea ice in the Greenland Sea is merely showing the movement of ice from further north on its inevitable path to melting out somewhere between Greenland and Iceland.

“Furthermore, I’d like to extend a big “fuck you” to the small group of sad individuals on the other side of this “debate” – you know who you are, you bunch of losers.”

Yes, they just don’t realize that denying science is a losing strategy. Always has been, always will be. Any other type of strategy has a better chance of success than science denial. If they had any sense, they’d realize that past science denial campaigns (e.g. tobacco, ozone, asbestos, other forms of pollution) have all ended in failure. But they don’t have any sense.

“Climate simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of AMPLIFYING FEEDBACKS and far field influences.”

This is known in some circles as an “own goal”. What a brainless moron Karen is. Keep digging.

Jeffie, call the doctor, you are hallucinating! Why should I try to convince myself about something I’m already convinced about? Are you nuts, for real?

Self idolatry is your forte, we all know that. But please stop posing in front of the mirror (trying to fit your hand in the dress shirt) while reciting from Taxi driver. You make an utter fool out of yourself, angry face and all.

The multi-billion dollar right wing conspiracy is still hidden I see, only to be detected by the initiated. What a surprise – not.

Lothar, sorry to tell you, but running away to the arctic will not change tha [sic] fact that the foundation of the penguine scare was bogus.

The only thing in this that is bogus is your misrepresentation of the Fretwell et al paper.

I tried to tell you gently before, Olaus Petri, but you blithely ignored my earlier comment…

I know one of the authors on the paper, and I have corresponded with another. They most vehemently disagree with the way that many people have twisted their results, in the same way that you have. Some of them have in fact tried to correct the record at various sites, and have for their troubles received abuse for having the temerity to explain the truth to the climate change deniers.

P. Lewis has already explained to you, at 9:27 am on 21 June, that the earlier figures were from studies that did not attempt a continent-encompassing survey. Further, as the Fretwell et al paper notes, Wienecke 2009 casts serious doubt on the finesse of the estimate in Martinez’s contribution to Handbook of the Birds of the World
Vol 1 in 1992.

The simple fact is that Martinez had a good guesstimate of the number of emperor penguins in parts of Antarctica, and 20 years later Fretwell et al had the technology to derive a much more accurate estimate for the whole of the continent. The paper says as much:

As previous population estimates did not take account of 16 of the 46 colonies (see Figure 3), and many previous counts were of poor quality and widely separated in time [11,12,23] these historical estimates cannot be considered representative of the total breeding population of emperor penguins.

Fretwell et al were measuring a different parameter (the total number of adult emperor penguins) , and one that could very well be decreasing even though it is currently larger than the incomplete Martinez estimate from 1992.

Fretwell’s et al results do not indicate any increase in penguin numbers – the authors I have spoken to have told me this – and they will require up to a decade of further surveying to detect any real change in the population dynamics of the species.

I seriously doubt that you actually read the paper, because you have completely misrepresented the very clear nature of the statements it makes. If you did read and understand it, then you are deliberately lying about its meaning. Either way, you have followed in the footsteps of many other people who have similarly and grossly misrepresented Fretwell et al 2012.

I did the truly sceptical thing and read the paper. After that I did an even more sceptical thing and spoke to the authors. You are completely and utterly wrong in your representation of their work. You owe them an apology, you owe the people on this thread an apology, and you owe truth an apology.

Bernie boy, I read what was said in the paper. I can’t read the minds of your friends though. The article states noting about a real decline of jefferor penguins. Some “mays” and “ifs” in found in a crystal ball, that all. SO if you have a problem with that take it up with them, not me.

Deal with it, cry baby. Prancing around with the tail in the air talking about what your penguin friends didn’t write in their paper isn’t that impressive.

Like I have said all along, the paper is only valid regarding the census, ant that didn’t show a decline. If anything it showed the opposite. And since the ice in antarctica is gaining mass it should be a warning sign of an unprecedented…;-)

Yawn! I see OP is still going on about increasing penguin numbers. What an absolute plonker!

Now, for sure, accurate estimates of emperor penguin numbers continent-wide have been lacking. As better methods for estimating numbers become available, those earlier numbers change. Those more accurate estimates can lead to numbers going up or down. It just so happens they’ve gone up. But just because the more recent estimate of penguin numbers has gone up, this doesn’t mean that the actual numbers have gone up… or down.

What is certain is that in the half-dozen or so sites where colonies have been actively observed over many years and numbers are known with reasonable accuracy (such as Jenouvrier et al. study site at Terre Adélie and in the link to the former colony on Emperor Island given above) the numbers are in definite decline.

OP is just pissing into the katabatic winds off the continent when he talks about the numbers going up.

You knwo, I don’t know if the deniers here are just all wilfully ignorant (WI), or plainly stupid (PS). In the case of Olaus, I will be kind and go with WI. He writes, with respect to the science behind AGW and other anthropogenic threats to the environment, “[its] easy to explain with tools gathered from the sociology of religions”.

Oh. So that mails it then. Now I know why I went through seven years of university studying zoology and a PhD, undertook several post docs and now have a career as a senior scientist. It was my religious fervor! For that matter, it explains why tens of thousands of researchers around the world are trying to unravel and elucidate complex biotic and abiotic processes. Its linked to the sociology of religions. Got it.

This is supposed the be the foundation for a debate? I might as well be conversing with an ameoba.

Then there is Karen. She leans towards the plainly stupid side. She completely misinterprets a Science article showing that there were times in the recent past (meaning several hundred thousand to almost 3 million years ago) when conditions were warmer than today. She didn’t determine the temporal scale over which those conditions changed from cooler to warmer (or vice versa), which may have been played out over tens of thousands of years. The authors in no way dispute the reality of the current human fingerprint on the current warming. Moreover, species, populations, individuals and ecosystems at those times were adapted over many millenia to ambient conditions. Karen’s argument is like saying that, because atmsopheric concentrations of C02 were once twice or three times higher than they are now, then the current increase in this parameter is nothing to worry about. But again, it depends critically upon what C02 regimes the plant and animal life evolved under.. If ambient temperatures and C02 regimes were higher at various epochs in the past, then the extant biota was also adapted to those conditions. The problem is that contemporary biodiversity across the planet is not adapted to conditions of the Micoene, or Pliocene, or Eocene or lower Cretaceous. Current species and genotypes are adapted to much lower C02 regimes and lower ambient temperatures. Certainly over extended evolutionary time species and the communities in which they are a part will adapt, but not at the rates at which humans are changing the surface temperatures of the planet and the chemistry of the atmosphere. Adaptation is a process which generally takes thousands of years if not longer. Yet humans are altering natural systems in the blink of an evolutionary eye: a century or even less. This is what the cornucopians cannot get through their (mostly) uneducated thick heads: the importance of scale. To them 50 years is a long time; 80 years is an eternity. To natural systems its an unprecedented challenge. To make matters worse, humans are not only tinkering with the planet’s climate control system, but we are altering the face of the planet in a myriad of other ways. We’ve decimated marine food chains by overharvesting species at the end of them, totally disrupting their functioning. We have changed the nutrient status of many aquatic systems, turning oligotrophic systems into highly eutrophic ones in the space of 50 years. We are reducing biological diversity – meansingdifferent genotypes and species – at rates unseen in 65 million years. These are the working parts of ourt global ecological life support systems. We have clear cut 50% of tropical wet forests, increased pressure on dryland habitats, thus expanding the extent of deserts, and are sucking groundwaters out at many times their recharge rates. We have doused much of the planet in synthetic organic pollutants, and have denatured many soils through overuse and acid precipitation. On top of this we are driving changes in climate at rates that would never occur without some major external forcing.

None of the deniers here are remotley capable of debating these issues, because none of them are scientists. If they’d read a little about global change scenarios, they might at least know the basics, but instead they rely on blogs like WUWT, Bishops’s Hill, Joanne Nova, CA etc. for their views. Why is this? None of the deniers who run these blogs is a bonafide scientist.Certainly none of these people are trained in environmental science. But they are alluring to those whose political ideologies are based on unconstrained free markets and deregulation of the economy. Forget the science.

Then Mack, another PS acolyte, has to dredge up Nasif Nahle for his ‘science’. Nahle appears never have published an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Instead, he contributes to right wing blogs, where his nonsense is asafe from real scrutiny by experts in the field. When I see Nahle’s stuff on the pages of a journal, I will take note. But until then he is not worth the time of day in my opinion.

To be honest, I am wasting my valuable time here, as are the majority of other contributors who take on these idiots. I have yet to see Olaus concretely address a single point I and others have made. He forever accuses me of ‘self-idolatry’ because his hero, Jonas, made the same vqacuous remark. Listen Olaus: if the shoe fits, wear it. If you want an intellectual debate on environmental science, go ahead and try. Of course I know more than you because I have spend the past 20 years of my life researching population ecology. That’s not self-idolatry: that’s the simple truth. Just like I would say that James Hansen and Michael Mann know a lot more about climate science than either I or you do. Because that is their field of expertise. You don’t have much of a clue about anything to do with the environment, that’s patently clear to me.

Dear Jeffie, as usual you think everything is about you. True is that you behave and reason like a religions buff in cloth, but you alone isn’t CAGW. 😉

And I didn’t address AGW, mind you. Its the preachers of doom, aka CAGW, that is the unscientific part of climate science, e.g raging ecologist foaming about conspiracies, evil puppet masters and right wing elders while studying nothing remotely connected to real climate science.

No, you read what you wanted to see in the paper. Or, at least what you wanted to see in what your denialist mates told you was in the paper.

I can’t read the minds of your friends though.

You don’t need to read minds. You only need to read the paper, and to understand the very clear and straighforward science contained therein.

Unfortunately for you, even that basic ability was beyond you.

The article states noting [sic] about a real decline of jefferor [sic] penguins. Some “mays” and “ifs” in [sic] found in a crystal ball, that [sic] all.

FFS, the paper wasn’t about decline, it was about establishing a decent baseline for future work that can detect change in population dynamics.

You’re acting like a fool.

SO if you have a problem with that take it up with them, not me.

I have no problem with the paper whatsoever. And yet I did follow it up with them.

If you had genuinely wanted to make a supportable statement contrary to what the paper said, you would have done the same thing.

You didn’t follow up, because you didn’t want to hear confirmation that the paper didn’t say what you wanted it to say, which was in direct and stark contradiction to what it actually said.

Deal with it, cry baby.

What, deal with being correct? Fine.

Idiot.

Prancing around with the tail in the air talking about what your penguin friends didn’t write in their paper isn’t that impressive.

I’m talking about what my friends did write in the paper, and they didn’t write what you said they had written.

Like [sic] I have said all along, the paper is only valid regarding the census, ant [sic] that didn’t show a decline.

Oh, you blundering idiot! How could it show a decline, when it is a baseline paper?! It’s measuring different things to previous work, so it can’t be compared to previous work. It would be no different to China doing a census of its population, and then comparing that number to a UN census, 20 years later, of all of Asia.

Are you really as silly as you’re demonstrating yourself to be?!

If anything it showed the opposite

Odin on a stick. That is complete bollocks. How on earth do you come to this conclusion? There is simply nothing validly compare the new number to, although there is a lot of other evidence to indicate that the overall numbers are going the other way.

And since the ice in antarctica is gaining mass it should be a warning sign of an unprecedented…

Garbage.

As is everything you type.

if you disagree, start putting forward something defensible. For a change.

Dear Bernie, exactly my point. The paper wasn’t about a decline of penguins. So why then all these heavy emotions and this sharing of your friends “thoughts” on the matter?

And there is no contradiction to be found in trying to create a baseline to see if the number of jefferor penguins will be affected in the future and to note that the census showed a number higher than a count made before:

“We estimated the breeding population of emperor penguins at each colony during 2009 and provide a population estimate of ~238,000 breeding pairs (compared with the last previously published count of 135,000–175,000 pairs).”

Read the above slowly Bernie, if possible to your friends too. I know the results weren’t reached using the same method, but nonetheless, if anything, it says that the numbers are greater than previously understood.

An increase. And since you guys are worried that ice loss will threaten the penguins you should be happy. Maybe unprecedented high levels of penguins coming our way?

Jeff: “In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”

I was curious. Why didn’t Jeff mention the climate change he saw or experienced first hand? Was he misleading the reader? Was he exaggerating? Can someone actually see climate change first hand and realize it’s climate change and not weather?

I had to know, so I asked on the April thread and then again here:

@66…”Jeff, I don’t doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?”

After some back and forth which included displays of Jeff’s past uncivil behaviour, I finally received a response @78 stating:

“I haven’t answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it.” Of course, I forgave him for this because, as we all know, he has a superiority complex.

This was followed by a 370 word rambling @78 that didn’t answer the question. Of course, I forgave him for that because I realize he can’t help himself and he thinks I’m too stupid to realize he didn’t answer the question.

After his usual rambling, Jeff seemed to have an afterthought and realized he didn’t answer the question…so he answers it @79:

“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”

End of May Post.

So, Jeff embellishes for the article with a lie about experiencing climate change first hand…..we know it’s a lie because he states on Deltoid “of course I can’t describe things first hand”….not knowing I read the article.

Yes Jeff, you are an embellishing egotistical lying sack who’s ramblings are only significant in your dreams…

However, Martinez’ estimate was based on a less accurate methodology, and did not include “16 of the 46 colonies (see Figure 3)”, as explained in the paper’s Results.

Contrast this to the work of Fretwell et al 2012. In case you missed it the first, second, and third times around, F12 surveyed 46 sites – 16 more than the last prior survey (Martinez, ~1992) – to derive a population estimate of 238,000 breeding pairs. That’s a 35% increase in the number of colonies surveyed, to account for the additional pairs. Even if there is an overall decrease in emperor penguin numbers, the additional sites included in the survey can easily offset this. Are you really so intellectually-impaired that you can’t understand this?!

One simply cannot compare the two numbers to infer anything about population dynamics. They are measuring completely different things. Not even when you protest:

I know the results weren’t reached using the same method, but nonetheless, if anything, it says that the numbers are greater than previously understood.

No, no, NO!

The F12 numbers are irrelevant to anything previously understood, in terms of population dynamcis. The paper stresses this; the authors explicitly tell me this.

Good grief, no! You’ve already done a more than adequate job at demonstrating you don’t understand what you’re talking about already. The fact that others have explained the exact source of several of your deep confusions only further reinforces my lack of need to add anything to the demonstration.

Bernard, you have to remember that Petard – like Brent and Jonarse (and with similar results) – belongs to the school of ‘thought’ that posits that as long as you can read and parse like a lawyer (and as dishonestly as they do), you can understand science. No further education is required – certainly none in any relevant field

He will no more ever understand what you are trying to impart any more than he will give up his dearly held delusion.

Bernard, you have to remember that Petard – like Brenda and Jonarse (and with similar results) – belongs to the school of ‘thought’ that would have us believe that as long as you can read and parse like a lawyer (and as dishonestly as they do), you can understand science. No further education is required – certainly none in any relevant field. Myron Ebell’s protégés in all their incompetent glory.

He will no more ever understand what you are trying to impart any more than he will give up his dearly held delusion.

A belly up then Lothar. Good for you, but next time please use fewer words. “No mas” will do it, promise. Conclusion: The emperor penguins are doing ok and the attempts to make a scare out of them were based on false premises.

What have we learned so far, besides the usual stuff that deltoids having an authoritarian mind set lacking critical thinking? Obviously that intolerant scare mongers don’t now the difference between crystal balling and science. They buy into anything involving a bit of a scare. Science? No! Strong feelings and a full monty? Yes! 😉

When somebody points out that there is no need for a scare wrt emperor penguins based on fallaciously comparing two different metrics and ignoring the rest of the evidenceand people still believe it is, there must be something missing: critical thinking.

When somebody points out that there is no need for a scare wrt emperor penguins and people still believe it is, there must be something missing: critical thinking.

P. Lewis has already indicated to you at, 10:06 am on 24 June, that there is evidence that emperor penguins are vulnerable to increase in contemporary mean global temperature, with respect to the overall Holocene mean.

Many of those who believe that there is reason for concern for this (and for many other) species are biologists, including physiologists and ecologists. We understand much better than do you the biophysics of cold-adapted metabolisms, and of the ecology of species dependent on ice-based habitats, and we understand that what matters for the continued successful survival of such species are the dynamics of processes of change that operate over many decades and centuries.

Your persistent nonsensical misinterpretation of Fretwell et al is not a sign of your own genius; it is simply proof to the world that you don’t understand fairly straighforward science.

The thing that is missing is certainly “critical thinking”, but to reiterate it is missing from what passes for thought processes in the minds of such as you.

It’s the same pattern of ignoring the elephants that Tim Curtin displays. Seriously, there’s a whole orchard of fruit for the picking in the field of denialist psychology…

And Petri, if your “no mas” is intended to mean what it appears to mean – your non-fluence in English acknowledged – then your ‘humour’ is of the most morally repugnant sort, and of such a magnitiude that you truly deserve a permanent ban from this forum.

Go back to pruning bushes. Its about as far as close to ‘science’ as you will ever get. You are a disgrace to humanity. If you think my trek across Algonquin Park and its aim (to describe the effects of climate change in the region) make me a liar, then you really ought to get away from your pruning shears more. I’ll present you with lots and lots and lots of references detailing the effects of recent warming on species and species-interactions in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, but you don’t want to know any of that, do you? You want to think you scored a great big brownie point because I did not present a lengthy and immediate list of examples where climate change is affecting the transition zone in Ontario. You moron: without doing detailed research on the region I can only speculate what effects there are. But `I want to make one point very clear, bush pruner: colleagues at the University of Toronto have already noted changes in the distributions of plants in the region, and have mapped the possible scenarios based on AR4. I also noted that insect and spider activity in the park was occurring in January, which is ridiculously early for an area with an average daily temperature of -7 and night minimum of -19. That these inverts were foraging at a time when they should be in diapause is clear evidence that something is amiss. And this is just in the short term – the space of one winter. If you knew anything remotely about ecology – which, in spite of your bush pruning you clearly do not – you’d realize that effects are manifested over many years. Is climate change a very real threat to areas at the borders of biome? You bet it is. You, Betula, exhibit all of the characteristics of the despicable deniers I have debated and challenged over the years of being a research scientist. Lomborg was easy, hence why he won’t debate me in a public forum any more. The main characteristic is in setting up strawmen such as expecting me to prove on the basis of a 23 day hike that warming was evidenced in the park. I did not write the press release but I sure as hell stand by it. If this is the best that you can do, you can jump into a very deep lake.

Karen, Olaus: I am sure that it does not pass by the lay reader that, when challenged on the kindergarten level of your ‘science’ (me at 11:54) your response,as expected, is mindless drivel (Karen, at 1:33, Olaus at 12:23) . Note to readers: deniers like Olaus and Karen make big noises, but when these are shot down, they resort to the usual innuendoes and witless remarks. If you two morons are as clever as you think you are, then see if you are capabale of discussing the reasons why abiotic conditions in the Miocene or Oligocene or Mesozoic are irrelevant to what is happening today. See if you can understand the process of scale. Or is this too much for your pea-sized brains?

“If you think my trek across Algonquin Park and its aim (to describe the effects of climate change in the region) make me a liar, then you really ought to get away from your pruning shears more”

No, I think you make you a liar..

“You moron: without doing detailed research on the region I can only speculate what effects there are”

Yes, speculation, the backbone of climate change. So you were embellishing on speculations…nice.

“But `I want to make one point very clear, bush pruner: colleagues at the University of Toronto have already noted changes in the distributions of plants in the region, and have mapped the possible scenarios based on AR4″

So you saw speculations and heard about possible scenarios first hand. Why didn’t you just say that in the first place?

“I also noted that insect and spider activity in the park was occurring in January, which is ridiculously early for an area with an average daily temperature of -7 and night minimum of -19. That these inverts were foraging at a time when they should be in diapause is clear evidence that something is amiss.”

Really? What was the temperature and what were the species? If it’s your first trek through Algonquin in the winter, how do you know this is ridiulously early? I thought, I mean you thought you were a genius:

…“No mas” refers to a famous line from a boxing match between Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard

So you were apparently telling me to say “I quit” to your “case” about penguins, even as I was telling you there was no point me adding to the evidence that you were deeply embarrassingly wrong on the facts and in your logic?

Tell me, when has the tactic of bluffing against people who know what they’re talking about from a position of your own ignorance and error worked for you in the past?

Uh, right, because no más is a boxing term rather than a very common phrase that occurs in all sorts of contexts. Oh, and your use of it was not an instance of the sort of imbecilic projection you are known for.

Apparently you’re a boxing illiterate, who thinks that Leonard told Durán to say “no más”. Here’s a clue for you, moron: it doesn’t work that way. No one is going to say “no más” to you because, unlike SRL, you completely and utterly suck and cannot land a blow.

Jeff Harvey.
Yeah in your opinion you “havn’t got the time of day” for Nasif Nahle. . No, its just that you are not exactly up with your atmospheric quantam thermodynamics are you Jeff.
In fact you don’t know shit from clay do you Jeff.

I think Jeff’s great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandaddy told him that glowbull warming longer in the old day’s.

Here is another peer reviewed study, and yep, warming happened to these people and no doubt the biota also.

Petard – your thorough lack of understanding is beginning to make Tim Curtin seem like a genius. Which he most certainly is not, by the way.

The most tragic thing is that you (and he) have had plenty of learning opportunities presented to you (as they say in modern-speak) but you’re so enamoured of your own facile stupidity – which you astoundingly mistake for cleverness – that you’re unable to take advantage of them. It’s armoured denialism on steroids in action.

No Mack, its just that I am a scientist, a real one, not someone who runs a blog and whose so-called research is confined to that blog or to right wing denial sites. If Nahle’s ‘science’ is so good, then the guy would send it to a journal where it will be critically reviewed by peers with expertise in the area, not fawned over by denialist hacks like Joanne Nova who are pushing political agendas.

The very fact that Nahle has never published in the peer-reviewed literaure says it all and means that his stuff will never be taken seriously in the mainstream. All kinds of gibberish ends up on the internet from flat Earth theories to alchemy and the like. This is why science is kept safe by peer-review. Certainly its not a perfect system but its the best we have, and certainly better than the garbage you read that placates your simpleton right wing brain.

I will give Betula some credit – he has told us that his profession is to prune trees and bushes. Why on Eareth a guy in a job like this would support those intent on taking our planet’s life support systems to hell is beyond me, but, then again, it takes all types. Perchance, I would be interested to know what professions you, Olaus and Karen have.Its clear that the three of you ahve never set foiot near a university science lecture, so what is it that you actually do? At least you know who I am. My qualifications are clearly available for anyone who wants to read them. To his credit, we also know who Nahle is, although that makes it easy to see he has no relevant professional expertise in the many fields on which he writes. To do that he needs to publish. Until he does, I am afrais that his brand of physics doesn’t make the cut.

Karen and Olaus: I would like to reiterate what I asked you yesterday. What do conditions in the Miocene have to do with those today. How do conditions in the past relate to conditions under which contemporary biota evolved? In your opinion, how would ecosystem functioning and services differ under different abiotic condtions? And what do you think of the importance of temporal and spatial scales in relation to adaptive radiation of genotypes, species, communities, ecosystems and biomes? How would you reconcile the differing theories accounting for species distributions – MaCarthur and Wilson’s Theory of Island Biogeography against the more recent Neutral Theory by Hubble? And how does this all play out under different scenarious of global change?

Well, there’s Karenmackspots annual supply of big words almost used up. I say almost only because there was no opportunity to fit ‘gummint’ or ‘marmalde’ in that context.

Karenmackspot, the reason Nahle posts in blogs is because he’s sad enough to require the adulation of illiterate numpties. Hence why his ‘work’ isn’t science because it isn’t published in actual journals for review by his peers.

I would though pay good money to see you define “atmospheric quantam (sic) thermodynamics, “ in your own words, live on stage.

For once you are correct – I have little interest or experience with boxing.

I do know, however, a professional basketballer who is almost a foot taller than me, and if anyone ever said “no mas” to him, the offender would have both his arms ripped off and his face slapped with the wet ends.

“I’m afraid his brand of physics doesn’t make the cut”
Aaahahahahahahahaha
And what “brand of physics” have you got to offer Jeff baby Some sort of AGW brand . Yes an “AGW brand of physics” You know a special brand of physics to “make the cut” and suit your bent requirements. But where is it Jeff ? What is this brand of physics that will “make the cut” And you of course will determine what makes the cut. What an arrogant, ignorant tosser you are.

I never claimed to be a physicist. But if I was, I would not get my world’s view from unpublished people on right wing contrarian blogs.My guess is that you know even less physics than me. That being the case, since when are you able to judge whether Nahle’s blog-variety ‘science’ is better than that found in the pages of numerous scientific journals?

The answer should be obvious. You can’t, probably because you’ve never read the primary literature in your life. Instead, you like Nahle’s ‘science’ because you dislike the ramifications the real stuff performed in science labs and universities around the world and published where it matters.

Come on Mack, you dumb schmuck, you must be able to do better than this.

And what “brand of physics” have you got to offer Jeff baby Some sort of AGW brand . Yes an “AGW brand of physics” You know a special brand of physics to “make the cut” and suit your bent requirements.

Fine, be coy. All I wanted to do was to point out that your socks post contemporaneously, when they’re supposed to be in different countries. However, your confession to being a sock puppeteer is sufficient for me – from now on we can all take it for granted that you don’t deny being a lone and a rather unintelligent numpty who talks to himself, but can’t ever engage in anything scientific.

Nah, he’s read what he’s been told. he hasn’t read the paper. You can cut and paste and to know when to end you’ve read the words, but only in the sense that you were following when the sentence ended. It’s not even to the level of understanding, it’s missing even comprehension.

Think of the advertising. You’re reading a page with ads on it, and that’s as far as Mack goes in reading Nahle’s work.